Local Government

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not informed him that they were no longer pursuing a proposed scheme to reduce parking pressures near his home. Mr C became aware of this when the council changed the road markings outside his house, and they were not to the style indicated in the previous proposal. Mr C said he had not been informed of the proposed change to the road markings. Mr C also complained that the council had not carried out a risk assessment prior to the change, and had not responded reasonably to his concerns about speeding, or his complaint about the above matters.

We found that the council had concluded their consultation on the first proposal and published their findings. The decision to alter the road markings was an entirely separate process. The council put up notices and placed an advert in a newspaper about the change to the road markings, in line with their statutory duties. We also noted that the council were not required to send individual notices to each resident. Therefore, we did not uphold these complaints.

We also found that the council were not required to carry out a risk assessment prior to changing the road markings as they were not considered radical changes. We did not uphold this complaint.

When Mr C reported concerns about speeding on his road, the council conducted a speed survey. The results of this indicated that the average speed of drivers was below the speed limit and the council took no further action. We found that the council had responded to Mr C's concerns and complaint in a timely manner and with reasonable responses. Therefore, we did not uphold these complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that it took the council over four months to identify the cause of a leak to the living room window at his former home, and also the time taken to complete the work. He was unhappy with the disruption caused to his family and with the council's refusal to refund one month's rent.

We were satisfied that the council's initial action was reasonable and in accordance with their repairs policy when Mr C first reported the problem. However, there was a lack of evidence to show the action that the council took following a further inspection around three weeks later when the leak continued. The council's refusal to refund one month's rent was on the basis that they did not consider the property was uninhabitable and that alternative accommodation had been offered. On reviewing the evidence we were satisfied that the council's position was reasonable.

In relation to the time taken to complete the work, we found that the inspections carried out were within the council's timescales and that repair work was also done within a reasonable timescale.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their record-keeping process with a view to ensuring that accurate records are maintained when arranging and completing repair work in line with their repairs timescales; and
• review their guidance to consider including the timescales for repair work.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of a planning application for the development of a local sports ground. Mr C said the council's report to the development management sub-committee contained significant errors and omissions and that, as a result, the committee did not make its decision on the basis of all the material considerations as required by law. Mr C listed eight separate areas where he considered there to be failings by the council. This included that there was an unreasonable failure by the council to adequately assess the information provided by the applicant about the height of the stadium, the size (footprint) of the development and attendance figures, and to ensure that this was correct. Mr C also said the council unreasonably failed to have regard to, and report properly on, the independent report obtained by consultants on the methodology used in the transport submission to the planning application.

We obtained independent advice on Mr C's complaint from a planning adviser. Our adviser did not find failings by the council in six of the eight areas identified by Mr C in his complaint. On the first of the remaining two areas, our adviser considered that the council did not unreasonably fail to adequately assess the information provided by the applicant about the height of the stadium, the size (footprint) of the development and attendance figures, and ensure that this was correct, so we did not uphold this complaint. However, our adviser was concerned about the planning report's lack of clarity in relation to the height dimensions detailed in Mr C's complaint so we made a recommendation to address this.

On the second matter, we accepted the council's view that they were not required to include every detail of the consultants' report in their planning report. However, we were concerned that, having commissioned an external assessment by consultants on the transport methodology used in this case (in response to concerns raised about the way in which the transport impacts of the proposed development had been handled by the council) the council did not adequately report the consultants' views in their planning report to committee, so we upheld Mr C's complaint about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that staff are aware of the need to provide appropriate descriptions/definitions of the dimensions being used in planning reports to committee;
• feed back our decision to the staff involved in this case; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Mr C complained about the council's handling of his social work complaint. The council convened a social work complaints review committee (CRC) to hear Mr C's complaint, but did so on the basis of written submissions from both Mr C and the social work department, rather than allowing Mr C to attend in person. Mr C complained to us about the appropriateness of the decision to hold the hearing in private and also about the overall delay in responding to his complaint. In addition, he complained that the council had failed to provide appropriate reasons to support the eventual decision not to uphold his complaint.

We considered that the council had taken reasonable steps in order to ensure that a fair and balanced review of Mr C's complaint was carried out. They had undertaken an assessment of the risks involved in him attending the CRC meeting in person, and Mr C and the social work department were given equal opportunity to submit written representations. We were satisfied that this fulfilled the council's statutory obligations, and that their decision to hold the hearing in private did not contravene the relevant directions. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

However, we were concerned with the level of information provided to Mr C by the council in support of the decision. We considered it reasonable to expect a fuller explanation of the reasons underpinning the decision to have been provided, particularly as Mr C was not given the opportunity to attend the hearing. Further, while we noted that this case raised particular challenges for the council, we considered that the overall time it took them to respond to Mr C's complaint was unreasonable. We upheld these two aspects of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to provide full and appropriate reasons for the decision not to uphold his complaint;
• provide Mr C with a more detailed explanation of how the CRC arrived at their decision not to uphold his complaint;
• apologise to Mr C for the unreasonable delay in responding to his complaint; and
• review their handling of Mr C's complaint with a view to identifying learning points and ensuring future compliance with their statutory obligations.

Summary

Miss C complained to the council about the lack of support provided by her son's secondary school to meet his additional support needs. She also complained that her son was subject to ongoing bullying, harassment and intimidation by a member of staff. After making their own investigations, the council partially upheld her complaint about her son's support needs not being met as they found insufficient reviews had been carried out with her son, and his learning plan had not been adjusted to meet his needs. The council did not find any evidence to support allegations against the member of staff.

Miss C was unhappy with this response and complained to us that the council had not reasonably addressed her complaints. We investigated and made further enquiries. We found that the council had made reasonable and appropriate enquiries into her concerns and, on the basis of the information available to them, reached a conclusion. While Miss C was unhappy with the outcome, there was no evidence to show that there had been an administrative fault in the council's consideration and, therefore, the merits of those decisions were not subject to review by us. We did not uphold Miss C's complaints.

Summary

Between 2007 and 2012, Mr C said he lived in five different properties in the council's area. Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to refund him overpaid council tax at one of the five properties and instead used the money for his outstanding council tax liabilities at the other properties. Mr C questioned the dates the council said he was resident at the properties as he said for much of the time he was in prison.

Our investigation established that the council were entitled to offset an overpayment of council tax at one property to settle an outstanding amount on another property. However, we would have expected the council to take appropriate steps to ensure their calculations were accurate prior to doing so.

The council provided us with copies of the documentary evidence they relied on regarding the dates of Mr C's tenancies and the dates he was in prison. This information was supplied by Mr C and the owners of the properties where he resided and it was therefore reasonable for the council to have relied on this.

However, we had concerns about the council's handling of the issue. There appeared to have been failings in the way in which Mr C's council tax liability was calculated which meant a refund of overpaid council tax may have been payable to Mr C from the outset. There also appeared to have been discrepancies in the start dates for one of Mr C's tenancies and the transfer of monies to this account. On balance, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their calculations of Mr C's council tax liability after giving him the opportunity to provide any further documentary evidence of his periods of detention and notify him of any adjustments in his council tax balance; and
• provide Mr C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of Ms A. She said that Ms A had agreed to move out of her property temporarily in order to allow repairs to be carried out. Ms C said that Ms A had been told after she moved out that she would not be allowed to return to the property. In addition she said the council had placed Ms A's possessions in storage without her consent and had not handled them appropriately. Ms C said Ms A had discovered her possessions had been placed in front of her house. She said this included personal possessions, exposing her to ridicule as photographs of them were placed on social media. Ms C said Ms A believed her goods had been intentionally damaged.

Our investigation found that, as Ms A had refused to allow the council access to the property, it was only following her move into temporary accommodation that it could be properly assessed. This assessment found that the property was not fit for habitation and posed a health risk due to severe neglect by Ms A. We found the council had acted appropriately by refusing to allow Ms A to return. Our investigation also found that the council had made it clear to Ms A that her goods would be placed in storage and that her agreement to this was on record. The council had acknowledged that some heavily soiled items of furniture had been left inappropriately outside, however, they had apologised for this. Storage had been provided as soon as possible and the evidence showed the contractors had been careful to identify personal effects, handing them over to the council for safekeeping.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council unreasonably failed to offer his sister (Ms A) the option of succeeding their father's tenancy on his council property after he had passed away. Mr C said his sister was living with their father prior to his death and should have been allowed to inherit their father's tenancy. Mr C said the council failed to follow their procedures in relation to his sister's application for succession to tenancy. He raised a number of issues in relation to this matter, including that the council failed to carry out house visits, checks and inspections to establish where Ms A had been living prior to their father's death; and failed to consider/accept evidence provided by Ms A in support of her application.

The council's procedure on succession to tenancy stated that the authenticity of the information provided by the applicant on their application form must be checked by carrying out additional investigations/checks. However, the investigations/checks referred to by Mr C and listed in the council's procedure were not mandatory and were a list of the types of checks that could be carried out. The council provided documentary evidence which showed that they carried out several of the checks/investigations suggested. We saw no evidence that the council failed to consider the evidence provided by Ms A in support of her application. The council advised that the information provided by Ms A had been taken into account. However, they said that other evidence, which included information provided by neighbours and investigations carried out by housing staff, was considered to be stronger and more reliable. It was not our role to determine what weight should be placed on any particular evidence: that was the discretionary decision of the council.

The evidence suggested that the council followed their procedure when dealing with Ms A's succession to tenancy application. Therefore, we did not consider that the council unreasonably failed to offer Ms A the option of succeeding her father's tenancy.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council that trees at the rear of her property were blocking sunlight into her back garden. Ms C was not happy with the council's response, and so she complained to us that the council failed to prune or remove the trees, and about the council's handling of her complaint.

We found that the council's tree and woodland management policy, while acknowledging that trees could create inconvenience for residents, stated that, as a general rule, pruning or removal works would not be carried out due to restriction of sunlight, unless it was judged to be excessive. In the professional opinion of council officers who assessed the trees the restriction was not excessive, taking into account the health of the trees and their position. Ms C disagreed with this assessment. However, we explained to Ms C that her disagreement was not evidence of a failing on the part of the council, and that it was not for us to determine whether there was excessive sunlight restriction. We did not uphold this complaint.

We had some concerns about the time taken by the council to respond to Ms C's complaint, about the records kept by the council about site visits to the trees, and about the level of detail and explanation in the council's final response to Ms C. We also found that the council's written responses to Ms C did not explicitly deal with the key issue of restriction of sunlight. Therefore, on balance, we upheld this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• remind staff that written replies to complaints must explicitly respond to the key issue(s) raised.

Summary

Ms C complained to the council that trees at the rear of her property were blocking sunlight into her back garden. Ms C was not happy with the council's response, and so she complained to us that the council failed to prune or remove the trees, and about the council's handling of her complaint.

We found that the council's tree and woodland management policy, while acknowledging that trees could create inconvenience for residents, stated that, as a general rule, pruning or removal works would not be carried out due to restriction of sunlight, unless it was judged to be excessive. In the professional opinion of council officers who assessed the trees, the restriction was not excessive, taking into account the health of the trees and their position. Ms C disagreed with this assessment. However, we explained to Ms C that her disagreement was not evidence of a failing on the part of the council, and that it was not for us to determine whether there was excessive sunlight restriction.

We had some concerns about the time taken by the council to respond to Ms C's complaint, about the records kept by the council about site visits to the trees, and about the level of detail and explanation in the council's final response to Ms C. However, on balance, we were satisfied that the council's handling of Ms C's complaint was reasonable in the circumstances, as it responded to the key issue of the restriction of sunlight, in keeping with the council's policy. We did not uphold Ms C's complaints.